Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 311 Improving the Efficiency and Consistency of Section 106 Compliance for State DOTs Strategies for Project-Level Programmatic Agreements Emily Pettis Dianna Litvak Tim Smith Katherine Oldberg Mead & Hunt, Inc. Middleton, WI State of Practice Report for NCHRP Project 25-62 Submitted July 2021 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniquesâthe National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agreement No. 693JJ31950003. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 311 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Waseem Dekelbab, Associate Program Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Ann Hartell, Senior Program Officer Jarrel McAfee, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor NCHRP PROJECT 25-62 PANEL Field of Transportation PlanningâArea of Human and Natural Environment Helen Patricia Ross, Virginia Department of Transportation, Fredericksburg, VA (Chair) Carey L. Coxe, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, LA Karen L. Daniels, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, MO Jeffrey L. Durbin, U.S. National Park Service, Gaithersburg, MD Jillian L. Edelmann, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Concord, NH Linda C. Henderson, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX Sandy Lawrence, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, GA Elizabeth Morton, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Arlington, VA Kurt Roedel, Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR Karen Van Citters, Van Citters Historic Preservation, LLC, Brenham, TX Ginny B. Way, Minnesota Department of Administration, Saint Paul, MN David S. Clarke, FHWA Liaison Katherine Zeringue, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Liaison Melissa Anderson Savage, AASHTO Liaison Mandy Ranslow, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Liaison William B. Anderson, TRB Liaison ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This State of Practice Report and related study was conducted for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) as a component of NCHRP Project 25-62, Improving the Efficiency and Consistency of Section 106 Compliance for State DOTs: Strategies for Project-Level Programmatic Agreements. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). The report was prepared by Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt). NV5 and Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) assisted with outreach efforts and interviews. The work was guided by a study panel serving as a technical working group that included the following: Helen Ross, Virginia DOT; Carey Coxe, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development; Karen Daniels, Missouri DOT; Jeffrey Durbin, National Park Service; Jillian Edelmann, New Hampshire DOT; Linda Henderson, Texas DOT; Sandy Lawrence, Georgia DOT; Elizabeth Morton, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Kurt Roedel, Oregon DOT; Karen Van Citters, Van Citters Historic Preservation; Ginny Way, Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office; David Clarke, Liaison, FHWA; Melissa Savage, Liaison, AASHTO; Mandy Ranslow, Liaison, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; Katherine Zeringue, Liaison, FRA. Additionally, the team would like to thank these individuals for their assistance during the project: Gail DâAvino, Georgia DOT; Rhonda Fair, Oklahoma DOT; and Terry Klein, SRI Foundation.
iv Page Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Primary findings .................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 What is a project-level PA? ................................................................................................. 3 A2. Why agencies use project-level PAs ................................................................................... 4 B. When is a project-level PA developed? .............................................................................. 5 C. Organization of this report ................................................................................................... 7 1. Project Approach ....................................................................................................................... 8 2. Results from the Survey and Interview Outreach .................................................................... 10 A. Summary of survey outreach ............................................................................................ 10 B. Responses received .......................................................................................................... 11 C. Survey results ................................................................................................................... 13 3. Analysis of Project-Level PAs .................................................................................................. 23 A. Understanding the knowns and unknowns about historic properties and effects ............. 23 Using effective and clear language ................................................................................... 25 C1. Working with Section 106 consulting parties .................................................................... 29 C2. Tribal, THPO, and Native Hawaiian Organization consultation ........................................ 32 Fulfilling agency commitments, including mitigation and contractual arrangements ........ 33 Administrative stipulations and appendices ...................................................................... 38 4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 44 List of Appendices Appendix A. Full Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 45 Appendix B. PA Analysis Spreadsheet ...................................................................................... 48 C O N TE N TS A1.
v List of Figures Figure 1. Summary of primary findings. ........................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Standard components in a project-level PA. .................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Data points used for PA analysis. ..................................................................................... 8 Figure 4. Illustration of the lead federal agencies (or NEPA Assignment state) represented across the executed project-level PAs reviewed by the project team. Fifty-four percent (46) of the PAs had FHWA as the lead federal agency. Note: States marked with an asterisk are full NEPA Assignment State. ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 5. Agency affiliation of questionnaire responses received as part of outreach efforts. ...... 11 Figure 6. Map illustrating the 38 states, including Washington, D.C., where the project team received questionnaire responses or conducted interviews. ......................................................... 12 Figure 7. Map illustrating the 33 states, including Washington, D.C., where the project team received PAs. ................................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 8. Survey responses indicating whether the agency has developed or signed a project-level PA. .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 9. Survey responses summarizing reasons why agencies do not develop project-level PAs. ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 10. Survey responses for typical length of time needed for the development and execution of a project-level PA. ...................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 11. Survey responses for types of contracting arrangements associated with project-level PAs. ................................................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 12. Survey responses for experiences after the execution of project-level PAs. ............... 20 Figure 13. Five main areas of a successful PA. ............................................................................ 23 Figure 14. Examples of successful mitigation. ............................................................................... 35 Figure 15. The duration of the majority of PAs analyzed was 10 years. ....................................... 39 C O N TE N TS
